Syria's Melting Pot: The Significance of the Aleppo Conflict
As militants make strides in Syria's second-largest city, the military vulnerability of Damascus and the inaction from Tehran bring up concerns regarding what lies ahead. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
As militants press into the city of two million, the military vulnerability of Damascus and Tehran's inaction prompt concerns about the future.
The escalating violence in northwest Syria has thrust Aleppo back into the spotlight as conflict flares shortly after a ceasefire was declared in Lebanon. This sudden resurgence of aggression signals a troubling new chapter of violence, unseen for four years, with a coalition including the Türkiye-backed Syrian National Army and jihadist factions like the Levant Liberation Organization launching a strategic offensive on Aleppo.
The contest for Aleppo extends beyond the city limits; it encapsulates the wider regional power struggles that have characterized Syria’s civil war. The renewed assaults raise serious doubts about regional stability and the effectiveness of international diplomatic initiatives. Despite global efforts to achieve peace, Syria remains deeply fragmented and, at this juncture, the geopolitical stakes in Aleppo are remarkably elevated.
In a carefully orchestrated offensive, fighters from various militant factions have moved into the western suburbs of Aleppo, advancing toward the iconic Saadallah al-Jabri Square. This indicates a strategic pivot, as these groups had previously gained substantial ground in the northern and western regions of Aleppo, along with portions of eastern Idlib. For many local residents, the rapid advance of the militants serves as a chilling reminder that peace remains an elusive goal.
The Syrian army's response has been lackluster. A statement from its defense ministry acknowledged the “large-scale” and “unexpected” assault by opposition forces yet fell short of outlining a credible counteroffensive strategy. Additionally, there are reports of Russian and Syrian airstrikes aimed at disrupting the supply lines of militants in the suburbs. However, these measures might not be enough to alter the balance of power, raising concerns about Damascus’ ability to fend off the insurgents during this new offensive surge.
As Syria’s second-largest city, Aleppo represents both an economic center and a crucial bastion for the government’s control over the nation. Should extremist groups capture it, it would deliver a significant blow to Damascus’ legitimacy. Located under 200 miles from the capital, the city is vital not only for its strategic value but also for its historical significance. Its fall could dramatically shift the balance of power in Syria and severely undermine Bashar Assad's government.
The complexity of the situation is further heightened by Iran's involvement, which maintains a substantial military presence in Syria. Despite having many military facilities—52 bases and 177 additional sites in Aleppo—Tehran has not undertaken decisive actions against the advancing militant groups. This lack of engagement raises pertinent questions about Iran’s strategy in Syria, especially as its military assets become increasingly vulnerable to quicker opposition forces.
Why, despite its considerable military presence, has Iran struggled to counter these factions effectively? A lack of air support coupled with a dependence on Syrian infrastructure might be significant drawbacks. Furthermore, Iranian forces have shown reluctance to engage directly, possibly due to the broader geopolitical landscape, fearing potential retaliation from Israeli and international forces. Such hesitance is allowing groups deemed terrorist organizations to infiltrate Aleppo with minimal resistance.
In response to the worsening circumstances, Damascus has recognized the need to enhance military supplies to shore up its defenses. However, these initiatives seem more reactive than proactive, indicating that its military strategy is increasingly on the defensive.
The unexpected insurgency raises significant doubts about the durability of the 2020 ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia and Türkiye. It underscores the pact’s fragility and suggests that as fighting escalates, the stability of the region is fraught with uncertainty. The international community's failure to achieve a lasting resolution in Syria is also apparent, with UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen highlighting a “political stalemate,” mirroring a broader global frustration concerning the lack of progress. Efforts toward conflict resolution have been thwarted by inertia and conflicting interests, making the prospect of sustained peace appear increasingly distant.
On a regional level, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempts to initiate dialogue with Syrian President Bashar Assad have stagnated. Erdogan has claimed that normalization would facilitate peace in Syria, yet tangible progress remains elusive. Türkiye, which is home to over three million refugees from Syria, faces increasing pressures related to human displacement as well as ongoing conflicts with Kurdish groups. Any meaningful advancement toward peace mandates dialogue between Ankara and Damascus, a crucial element still absent from the current strategy.
Türkiye has bolstered its military footprint in Syria, with 12 bases and 114 military locations, including a notable concentration in Aleppo and Idlib. While Iranian forces are numerically superior, Ankara’s military capabilities—especially in air defense, artillery, and modern communication technologies—position it as a progressively significant player in the Syrian conflict.
This evolving power dynamic enables Türkiye to enhance its standing in Syria while exerting control over various armed groups it supports, albeit not officially acknowledging this. Through its actions, Ankara is consolidating its influence, particularly in Aleppo, where it is poised to play a pivotal role in shaping the conflict’s future direction.
The geopolitical struggle is reaching new heights. The Syrian conflict, particularly the contest for Aleppo, encapsulates a broader struggle for regional influence between powers like Türkiye and Iran. Ankara's military involvement in Syria is likely to escalate as its influence grows increasingly crucial to the region's future stability.
Israel’s longstanding concerns regarding the increasing influence of Iranian-backed forces near its borders have heightened as Syria’s internal conflict persists. In response, Israel has emerged as a key player in shaping the regional security landscape, adopting a more proactive stance to counter the expansion of Iranian power.
This shift in Israeli policy aligns with a broader approach anticipated under the forthcoming Trump administration, which is expected to emphasize countering Iran and strengthening alliances with regional partners like Israel. The potential re-engagement of a Republican administration could catalyze coordinated actions in Syria, affecting both local and international players.
Will the circumstances in Syria ultimately lead to a transformation of regional power structures? Could Türkiye's rising role indicate a decline in Iranian influence? Additionally, as Aleppo transforms into a battleground for larger geopolitical confrontations, what influence will Israel and the U.S. exert on the conclusions drawn?
The confrontation for Aleppo transcends a mere military engagement; it symbolizes a struggle for power with implications that extend beyond Syria’s future to the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
This article was originally published in Russian on Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by RT.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
The escalating violence in northwest Syria has thrust Aleppo back into the spotlight as conflict flares shortly after a ceasefire was declared in Lebanon. This sudden resurgence of aggression signals a troubling new chapter of violence, unseen for four years, with a coalition including the Türkiye-backed Syrian National Army and jihadist factions like the Levant Liberation Organization launching a strategic offensive on Aleppo.
The contest for Aleppo extends beyond the city limits; it encapsulates the wider regional power struggles that have characterized Syria’s civil war. The renewed assaults raise serious doubts about regional stability and the effectiveness of international diplomatic initiatives. Despite global efforts to achieve peace, Syria remains deeply fragmented and, at this juncture, the geopolitical stakes in Aleppo are remarkably elevated.
In a carefully orchestrated offensive, fighters from various militant factions have moved into the western suburbs of Aleppo, advancing toward the iconic Saadallah al-Jabri Square. This indicates a strategic pivot, as these groups had previously gained substantial ground in the northern and western regions of Aleppo, along with portions of eastern Idlib. For many local residents, the rapid advance of the militants serves as a chilling reminder that peace remains an elusive goal.
The Syrian army's response has been lackluster. A statement from its defense ministry acknowledged the “large-scale” and “unexpected” assault by opposition forces yet fell short of outlining a credible counteroffensive strategy. Additionally, there are reports of Russian and Syrian airstrikes aimed at disrupting the supply lines of militants in the suburbs. However, these measures might not be enough to alter the balance of power, raising concerns about Damascus’ ability to fend off the insurgents during this new offensive surge.
As Syria’s second-largest city, Aleppo represents both an economic center and a crucial bastion for the government’s control over the nation. Should extremist groups capture it, it would deliver a significant blow to Damascus’ legitimacy. Located under 200 miles from the capital, the city is vital not only for its strategic value but also for its historical significance. Its fall could dramatically shift the balance of power in Syria and severely undermine Bashar Assad's government.
The complexity of the situation is further heightened by Iran's involvement, which maintains a substantial military presence in Syria. Despite having many military facilities—52 bases and 177 additional sites in Aleppo—Tehran has not undertaken decisive actions against the advancing militant groups. This lack of engagement raises pertinent questions about Iran’s strategy in Syria, especially as its military assets become increasingly vulnerable to quicker opposition forces.
Why, despite its considerable military presence, has Iran struggled to counter these factions effectively? A lack of air support coupled with a dependence on Syrian infrastructure might be significant drawbacks. Furthermore, Iranian forces have shown reluctance to engage directly, possibly due to the broader geopolitical landscape, fearing potential retaliation from Israeli and international forces. Such hesitance is allowing groups deemed terrorist organizations to infiltrate Aleppo with minimal resistance.
In response to the worsening circumstances, Damascus has recognized the need to enhance military supplies to shore up its defenses. However, these initiatives seem more reactive than proactive, indicating that its military strategy is increasingly on the defensive.
The unexpected insurgency raises significant doubts about the durability of the 2020 ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia and Türkiye. It underscores the pact’s fragility and suggests that as fighting escalates, the stability of the region is fraught with uncertainty. The international community's failure to achieve a lasting resolution in Syria is also apparent, with UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen highlighting a “political stalemate,” mirroring a broader global frustration concerning the lack of progress. Efforts toward conflict resolution have been thwarted by inertia and conflicting interests, making the prospect of sustained peace appear increasingly distant.
On a regional level, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempts to initiate dialogue with Syrian President Bashar Assad have stagnated. Erdogan has claimed that normalization would facilitate peace in Syria, yet tangible progress remains elusive. Türkiye, which is home to over three million refugees from Syria, faces increasing pressures related to human displacement as well as ongoing conflicts with Kurdish groups. Any meaningful advancement toward peace mandates dialogue between Ankara and Damascus, a crucial element still absent from the current strategy.
Türkiye has bolstered its military footprint in Syria, with 12 bases and 114 military locations, including a notable concentration in Aleppo and Idlib. While Iranian forces are numerically superior, Ankara’s military capabilities—especially in air defense, artillery, and modern communication technologies—position it as a progressively significant player in the Syrian conflict.
This evolving power dynamic enables Türkiye to enhance its standing in Syria while exerting control over various armed groups it supports, albeit not officially acknowledging this. Through its actions, Ankara is consolidating its influence, particularly in Aleppo, where it is poised to play a pivotal role in shaping the conflict’s future direction.
The geopolitical struggle is reaching new heights. The Syrian conflict, particularly the contest for Aleppo, encapsulates a broader struggle for regional influence between powers like Türkiye and Iran. Ankara's military involvement in Syria is likely to escalate as its influence grows increasingly crucial to the region's future stability.
Israel’s longstanding concerns regarding the increasing influence of Iranian-backed forces near its borders have heightened as Syria’s internal conflict persists. In response, Israel has emerged as a key player in shaping the regional security landscape, adopting a more proactive stance to counter the expansion of Iranian power.
This shift in Israeli policy aligns with a broader approach anticipated under the forthcoming Trump administration, which is expected to emphasize countering Iran and strengthening alliances with regional partners like Israel. The potential re-engagement of a Republican administration could catalyze coordinated actions in Syria, affecting both local and international players.
Will the circumstances in Syria ultimately lead to a transformation of regional power structures? Could Türkiye's rising role indicate a decline in Iranian influence? Additionally, as Aleppo transforms into a battleground for larger geopolitical confrontations, what influence will Israel and the U.S. exert on the conclusions drawn?
The confrontation for Aleppo transcends a mere military engagement; it symbolizes a struggle for power with implications that extend beyond Syria’s future to the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
This article was originally published in Russian on Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by RT.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
